Trinity Square (inc. Tesco) | Gateshead | 46m | 13fl | T/O

[SCNewcastle]

Originally Posted by BigLebowski

Oh right, so in essence its a tribute to our industrial past?

That has to be someone working in the architects' office taking the piss, doesn't it? Reflecting the unique Gateshead tradition of having stratified rocks, they've designed buildings that consist of a series of horizontal floors arranged on top of each other?! If I was a Gateshead councillor or officer, I might not like planning applications to be quite such obvious insults to my intelligence...

[anonymous1]

I just can't get over how terrible the 5 curved buildings at the front are. They're disgusting.

And how many students do they expect to want to live in Gateshead when flats in Newcastle will probably be cheaper and better? And they'll probably be mostly empty as student numbers aren't going to explode anytime soon.

[sterock85]

This is just awful. I really can't add anything constructive.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

Originally Posted by TownPlanningNE

Perhaps a bit of an insight into their thinking...

What a pile of horse crap. I'm 99% certain that they've cobbled that design together and then tacked on a "concept" afterwards. Let's be honest, vertical separation of uses is hardly an innovative concept is it - it happens everywhere! Besides, who on earth wants to live, shop or socialise in something that reminds them of a bloody coalmine?!

As for the plinth, will the space on top be public or private?

And when does this go in for planning? Once it's in, I'm guessing we can all object online..?

[TownPlanningNE]

Originally Posted by AngerOfTheNorth

What a pile of horse crap. I'm 99% certain that they've cobbled that design together and then tacked on a "concept" afterwards. Let's be honest, vertical separation of uses is hardly an innovative concept is it - it happens everywhere! Besides, who on earth wants to live, shop or socialise in something that reminds them of a bloody coalmine?!

As for the plinth, will the space on top be public or private?

And when does this go in for planning? Once it's in, I'm guessing we can all object online..?

I'd like the answer to that question about the plinth too! Haven't seen any information anywhere on it though.

It is in for planning now, you can object in the same ways you do for anything at Newcastle City Council I'd guess. It is online using Public Access.

[The Tynesiders]

I stupidly assumed they'd be building a town square into it, as it's called Trinity Square.

[toonlad]

Well as someone who does not live in Gateshead, and who has never commented on a planning application before, even I have been compelled to raise an objection. What is happening here is the replacement of a ridiculous carbuncle, too big and totally unsympathetic to its neighbours and its intended use... for something that is exactly the same, just a bit more modern.

Lets not forget that Ludder built something that no doubt looked shiny and offered a fresh concept for a depressed town centre, and before long it was falling apart. How can the borough of Gateshead, with its aspiration to become a city, and university town, even consider letting this monstrosity go ahead. Not only does it destroy any hope of creating a pleasent and functional town centre, but it kills any possibility of linking the town centre to the quayside in a coherent way. This will resign Gateshead town centre to the dust heap for another 50 years, guaranteed.

[architect1976]

Originally Posted by toonlad

Well as someone who does not live in Gateshead, and who has never commented on a planning application before, even I have been compelled to raise an objection. What is happening here is the replacement of a ridiculous carbuncle, too big and totally unsympathetic to its neighbours and its intended use... for something that is exactly the same, just a bit more modern.

Lets not forget that Ludder built something that no doubt looked shiny and offered a fresh concept for a depressed town centre, and before long it was falling apart. How can the borough of Gateshead, with its aspiration to become a city, and university town, even consider letting this monstrosity go ahead. Not only does it destroy any hope of creating a pleasent and functional town centre, but it kills any possibility of linking the town centre to the quayside in a coherent way. This will resign Gateshead town centre to the dust heap for another 50 years, guaranteed.

There's a public square in the middle.

Although I don't like the overall design or the very much 'crap' visualizations that have been produced I do think this is a very ambitious scheme.

For example:

[AngerOfTheNorth]

Does anyone know where/how we object to the application? What the website address is and where we find the application number?

[NewcastleStu]

Architect1976: The public square is miniscule and looks like a very, very small concession to making a public space.

[architect1976]

Originally Posted by NewcastleStu

Architect1976: The public square is miniscule and looks like a very, very small concession to making a public space.

It's a Tesco Value version.

[alf stone]

The planning application details are here:

http://planning.gateshead.gov.uk/pub...rchtype=WEEKLY

but I haven't worked out how to raise an objection

[TownPlanningNE]

The planning application link can be found on the opening post of this thread. To comment I believe you just click on "Submit Comments" at the top of the page.

[NewcastleStu]

Objection submitted.

[bigchrisfgb]

I have also objected to it, thugh I live a little too far away from Gateshead for them to take any real notice to me.

I basically said it offers nothing new to Gateshead, the size of the additional retail space with offer nothing but the likes of bookies, and cheap shoe shops and combined with the Tesco's will take away all competition in Gateshead concerning retail. I've also said that the buildings themselves are nothing but ghetto blocks with curved metal above them to make them look like something they are not, also saying that a lot of the buildings have little detail in the plans and are seen as an after thought. Finally I said they were too tall and not what Gateshead needed and in consideration to the size of the scheme the over all proposed public space on offer was not enough.

[DXNewcastle]

Originally Posted by bigchrisfgb

I have also objected to it, thugh I live a little too far away from Gateshead for them to take any real notice to me.

I basically said it offers nothing new to Gateshead, the size of the additional retail space with offer nothing but the likes of bookies, and cheap shoe shops and combined with the Tesco's will take away all competition in Gateshead concerning retail. I've also said that the buildings themselves are nothing but ghetto blocks with curved metal above them to make them look like something they are not, also saying that a lot of the buildings have little detail in the plans and are seen as an after thought. Finally I said they were too tall and not what Gateshead needed and in consideration to the size of the scheme the over all proposed public space on offer was not enough.

I don't disagree with you, but . . .
Local Authorities are given the power to refuse Planning applications. But if they do, then that refusal MUST be on Planning grounds. These are defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and as amended. This indicates the grounds on which an Authority could refuse an application. Some of these are qite precise such as the loss of daylight to a neighbouring property.

Gateshead (as any other LA) is not going to refuse an application on representaions such as these because, if it does, it will almost certainly have its decision Appealled to the Planning Inspectorate - and will loose. With significant costs awarded to the developer (and paid for by Gateshead).

On the rare occasions when Members on the Planning Development Control Committee decide to refuse an application against officers' recommendation, then they are likely to be asked again to clarify on what Planning grounds they are wanting to refuse the application. Its crucial that at that momment they have an answer - on Planning grounds.

Planning objections MUST ALWAYS have a robust evidential basis in Planning Law. Otherwise they're just a waste of time.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

So what grounds would you suggest putting forward as a reason for refusal? As far as I'm aware (in fact I'm pretty certain), you can refuse an application based upon poor design, however for some bizarre reason this is one of the easiest arguments to overturn at appeal.

[TownPlanningNE]

Originally Posted by AngerOfTheNorth

So what grounds would you suggest putting forward as a reason for refusal? As far as I'm aware (in fact I'm pretty certain), you can refuse an application based upon poor design, however for some bizarre reason this is one of the easiest arguments to overturn at appeal.

You can refuse due to design, however the architect will then be asked to justify their reason for it's design and in most cases that will be sufficient evidence in favour. You also cannot refuse an application on competition grounds, so you can't say Tesco would take away customers from local businesses. You could however say it would damage the economic vitality of the area.

Views is another reason that cannot be used as no one is entitled to a view, however if the scheme was to block sunlight from housing then that would be a valid reason. Basically it needs to be a material consideration for it to be refused. Some examples would include, sustainability, housing mix, layout, siting, environmental issues, etc.

[AngerOfTheNorth]

Yup, that's pretty much what I thought. I would however love the council to turn it down on a number of grounds including design, if only to force the architect to stand up - in public - and tell us all about his/her "Gateshead Bell Pit Concept"...

The thing is, I can't see that there is an overly strong case against this development in terms of environmental sustainability, housing mix etc. The layout is obviously a mess, but surely this is part of the design considerations?

[TownPlanningNE]

It shall be interesting to see how the council view these proposals. I'd be surprised however if these were refused, as you say there isn't really much of a strong case to be made against it, apart from the design.

Lets face it, the new Tesco and retail space are going to be good for the town centre in terms of improving the retail offer. The new offices will be a good opportunity for employment and the student residential element, of which is a very large part of the scheme, will bring more life into the centre in terms of people living there. The problem is how it is all being brought together in its design. Which as everyone agrees is not the best.

To be honest I don't think the scale and massing of the buildings are far off, the main problem in relation to that is they are on a plinth, which is just making it one huge block.

It will be interesting to see the responses from various stakeholders and of course the council.